Mr Bush vs Mr Kerry in Nature over Science.

[Sunday8pm]

Finally a BBC article that genuinely raises some good stuff on their campaigns

So from the jist of it;
Bush wants to make mini nukes, Kerry will end making nukes.
Kerry hints at working towards the kyoto treaty, Bush wants to lower emissions in the US (that have probably went up by the amount he wants to lower while he's been in office).
Kerry wants stem cell research, Bush Doesn't.
Kerry thinks putting men on the moon/Mars is a fruitless expense of cash, Bush wants us all to move there(probably cause he knows one day he'll make the earth inhospitable).
Both of them GM foods

And there's some other questions that the BBC article doesn't cover but if anyone can find em and post a link it'd be appreciated.

Common Sense tells me that if american's thought with their brains they'd ditch bush like the plague based on this input. I'm sure if Kerry put the economic spin on how much money can go back into the economy if he could stop bush funding his star wars stuff he'd win easily.

[Deepflow]

well quite a lot of americans are either terrified of terror, or religious nuts or just uber greedy rich republicans.

at least thats the impression i get, i cant think of any other people who would vote for bush

p.s isnt it cool that wossname said 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself' and now theyre all scared of 'terror'?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

once again sunday forgets that most of us dont live on the north american continent and therefore dont care.

if you think about those climate changes, it doesnt really matter where we live.

i doubt that bush is serious about his space-programm, he can hardly effort what he spends today, so how could he add a multi-billion space-program?

i dont care about gm-food and stemcell research. .

[Boogster]

I detected almost nothing interesting from that article, barring, of course, the BBC's flagrant bias.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I detected almost nothing interesting from that article, barring, of course, the BBC's flagrant bias.

In what way?

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Boogster

I detected almost nothing interesting from that article, barring, of course, the BBC's flagrant bias.

i thought it was fairly neutral. it didnt make bush look nearly as much of a retard as he actually is. Maybe it was a little too biased towards him?

[queball]

Neither of them want a man on Mars.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by queball

Neither of them want a man on Mars.

What good is putting a man on mars going to do (given the expense involved...)

[queball]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

What good is putting a man on mars going to do (given the expense involved...)

I don't know if it would do good or not, I just think exploration is fun. How about, magic tricks like going to the moon increases interest in science, or at least willingness to pay for science programs.
In the long-term if you could terraform, the value of all that land would be several trillion.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Common Sense tells me that if american's thought with their brains they'd ditch bush like the plague based on this input.

This input is largely irrelevant though.

I'm sure if Kerry put the economic spin on how much money can go back into the economy if he could stop bush funding his star wars stuff he'd win easily.

Which economy do you think the stars wars funding is going into?

And FWIW, Kerry has--in typical fashion--voted both for and against missile defense bills.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

This input is largely irrelevant though.

Which economy do you think the stars wars funding is going into?

And FWIW, Kerry has--in typical fashion--voted both for and against missile defense bills.

A fair share is heading across the border to Canada as part of Paul Martin's co-operation for the republican's paranoia.

Not that a certain section of Canada is greatful for this, but you'll see the main thing about military spending, at least in the past, is that it works for the economy when you export the product you've put the money into the R&D for, I can't see anyone in their infinite wisdom buying this sorta thing right now and hence it's money being pissed up against a wall atm.

[wu_trax]

its deficit spending, but deficit spending on things not very usefull. in some countries they waste money on infrastructure and social security, other waste it on military. i know where i would put my money (but then, you could also regard the us-army as a social security system. if you cant find a job, join the army...)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Which economy do you think the stars wars funding is going into?

Remember kids, spending on massive military programs boosts jobs and helps the economy. Money on welfare and healthcare is money down the drain though.

[JonnyBGood]

And the environment. Nobody likes the environment with all that green shit. If we wanted that much green shit surely we'd justpaint our skyscrapers?

[Radical Edward]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Remember kids, spending on massive military programs boosts jobs and helps the economy. Money on welfare and healthcare is money down the drain though.

absolutely, remember doctors and members of the medical profession are not consumers. They simply hoard money and/or send it abroad.

[roadrunner_0]

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

absolutely, remember doctors and members of the medical profession are not consumers. They simply hoard money and/or send it abroad.

to their families in india???

[Ninja_spammer]

Eddy is that Asuka from evangelion in your ava?

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Remember kids, spending on massive military programs boosts jobs and helps the economy. Money on welfare and healthcare is money down the drain though.

Actually, both "boost" jobs and "help" the economy (at least in the sense that the money isn't taken out of the economy)--which was essentially my point. It's just shuffling money around.

But since it's government money, it's pretty much down the drain either way, Comrade.

[JonnyBGood]

Terrified of terror? Ignorant of islam? Dismayed by democrats? Horrified by homosexuals?


Vote Bush for a safer America in 2004.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Terrified of terror? Ignorant of islam? Dismayed by democrats? Horrified by homosexuals?


Vote Bush for a safer America in 2004.

I'm going to break MM's rules and nominate this. (already nominated one post this week.)

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

I'm going to break MM's rules and nominate this. (already nominated one post this week.)

You can scrap your first nomination should you so wish.

[JonnyBGood]

That was my 8000th post as well

Finally something to put on my CV.



PS I was going to use nauseated by negroes but I thought that might be a step too far

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Actually, both "boost" jobs and "help" the economy (at least in the sense that the money isn't taken out of the economy)--which was essentially my point. It's just shuffling money around.

But since it's government money, it's pretty much down the drain either way, Comrade.

Actualy, it's a quick way of getting money from the tax payers pockets into the pockets of the rich corporations and capitalist pockets. This has been routine procedure by American presidents since WW2. Create a big threat, use it as an excuse to spend on military, this shifts money from the tax payer's pockets into the pockets of the rich capitalists and in the mean time get rid of some defenceless opposition somewhere in the world. Afterall, September 11 was let happen so that there would be a huge threat in America. There is quite a lot of evidence supporting that, such as ignoring all the warnings of an imminent Al Quaida (spelling?) attack on the twin towers and the fact they took a huge insurance out on the world trade centre just before september 11.

[queball]

Why would a capitalist put money in his pocket rather than buying factories?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by queball

Why would a capitalist put money in his pocket rather than buying factories?

because factories would create jobs which would benefit the poor and CAPITALISTS QUITE OBVIOUSLY DESPISE THE POOR AND SEEK TO ELIMINATE THEM BECAUSE IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE IN THEIR INTERESTS. I MEAN COME ON PEOPLE THIS ISN'T A HARD ONE.

[/rant against people who rant against capitalism without knowing what the **** they're talking about. Oh, and also I am at people who claim the Bush administration chose not to react to 9/11]

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I was going to use nauseated by negroes but I thought that might be a step too far

Not according to the late Strom Thurmond.

[Sunday8pm]

I'm inclined to agree with Nadval tbh.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Actualy, it's a quick way of getting money from the tax payers pockets into the pockets of the rich corporations and capitalist pockets. This has been routine procedure by American presidents since WW2. Create a big threat, use it as an excuse to spend on military, this shifts money from the tax payer's pockets into the pockets of the rich capitalists and in the mean time get rid of some defenceless opposition somewhere in the world. Afterall, September 11 was let happen so that there would be a huge threat in America. There is quite a lot of evidence supporting that, such as ignoring all the warnings of an imminent Al Quaida (spelling?) attack on the twin towers and the fact they took a huge insurance out on the world trade centre just before september 11.

lol. No, it was the Mossad!

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

lol. No, it was the Mossad!

hmm, i watched a documentary on "september 11 conspiracy theories" the guy doing it was basically taking the piss out of most of the nutjobs that come up with them - especially that one.
However he also admitted there are a lot of facts available which are quite scary when all looked at together.
Something unexplained happened that day, I thnk most people can agree on that.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Ste

hmm, i watched a documentary on "september 11 conspiracy theories" the guy doing it was basically taking the piss out of most of the nutjobs that come up with them - especially that one.
However he also admitted there are a lot of facts available which are quite scary when all looked at together.

There usually are. Pearl Harbor, JFK, RFK, MLKjr, etc.

Something unexplained happened that day, I thnk most people can agree on that.

Yeah whatever.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Phang

because factories would create jobs which would benefit the poor and CAPITALISTS QUITE OBVIOUSLY DESPISE THE POOR AND SEEK TO ELIMINATE THEM BECAUSE IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE IN THEIR INTERESTS. I MEAN COME ON PEOPLE THIS ISN'T A HARD ONE.

[/rant against people who rant against capitalism without knowing what the **** they're talking about. Oh, and also I am at people who claim the Bush administration chose not to react to 9/11]

I never said they wanted to eliminate the poor, just keep them the way they are - stop them from excelling. Which, in actual fact, would be in their best interests...

As to saying the Bush administration was totally unaware of a threat on the world trade centre, well I'd like to know where you got your evidence from. From foriegn intelligence (if he read it) Bush would have known there was going to be a plane hijacking between 9-12 September and that the twin towers were a possible target. I'm not saying he wanted it to happen, rather saw it as an oppertunity to remove opposition within the country and pin something on Iraq (which he did, despite there being zero evidence).

It has been done numerous times in the last 50 years and I'm surprised most people haven't caught on and noticed - there's always been a threat somewhere in the US, when (except Pearl Harbour + 9/11) have they ever been attacked? The first Bush administration pretended that Iraq and Saddam were such a superpower (of course the US media, as per usual, played their role in this), despite it being this devoloping country which was so weak it was unable to defeat post-revolutionary Iran after 8 years of warfare- and with support from the US, USSR, Europe and all the Arab oil countries: not an inconsiderable portion of world power. They pretended this was some huge threat to world peace, to the extent that in Northern California (one of many examples) they police taped the airports everywhere to "protect from Arab terrorists". You had to be pretty brainwashed to believe that this poor defenseless devoloping country threatened the two biggest powers in the world (Britain and USA), and that applies to both wars.

[Nadval]

Oh, and not to mention creating factories is ideal for capitalists, because it's another facility for exploitation. More workers = more workers being exploited = more businessmen get much richer = the gap between rich and poor widens further etc. Thus all those big companies spreading around the world.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Nadval

...and that applies to both wars.

I think I can safely say that the reasons behind the first gulf war and the reasons behind the second gulf war were significantly different.
But anyway. That's going off-topic.

Can you imagine what Bush will do in the next 4 years if he doesn't have to even worry about being re-elected?
It's a scary prospect...

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Actualy, it's a quick way of getting money from the tax payers pockets into the pockets of the rich corporations and capitalist pockets. This has been routine procedure by American presidents since WW2. Create a big threat, use it as an excuse to spend on military, this shifts money from the tax payer's pockets into the pockets of the rich capitalists and in the mean time get rid of some defenceless opposition somewhere in the world. Afterall, September 11 was let happen so that there would be a huge threat in America. There is quite a lot of evidence supporting that, such as ignoring all the warnings of an imminent Al Quaida (spelling?) attack on the twin towers and the fact they took a huge insurance out on the world trade centre just before september 11.

Sigh.

You have combined two points. One very reasonable and one ridiculous, and by doing so you've made them both seem equally absurd.

There is no need for conspiracy theories for the first part of your point. Every group in society generally tries to increase their income / status / share of the pie when they can. So workers trade unions will try and get more pay, advocacy groups might want more money for welfare, pensioners want more pensioners, etc. The wealthy in a place like the United States are no different but because they wield disproportionate influence (through campaign contributions as an example) their efforts are often more successful.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Ste

I think I can safely say that the reasons behind the first gulf war and the reasons behind the second gulf war were significantly different.
But anyway. That's going off-topic.

Can you imagine what Bush will do in the next 4 years if he doesn't have to even worry about being re-elected?
It's a scary prospect...

Actualy both wars were because Iraq wasn't submissive to American needs. Also the methods of getting citizens to support the war were the same in both cases, the only things that were different were the reasons given to the public.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Nadval

I never said they wanted to eliminate the poor, just keep them the way they are - stop them from excelling. Which, in actual fact, would be in their best interests...

actually its not in their best intest: poor people cant buy stuff and, by doing so, make the rich even richer.

As to saying the Bush administration was totally unaware of a threat on the world trade centre, well I'd like to know where you got your evidence from. From foriegn intelligence (if he read it) Bush would have known there was going to be a plane hijacking between 9-12 September and that the twin towers were a possible target. I'm not saying he wanted it to happen, rather saw it as an oppertunity to remove opposition within the country and pin something on Iraq (which he did, despite there being zero evidence).

that some foreign intelligence service knew about it (or even an american one) doesnt mean that bush knew anything whatsoever. he used it to attack iraq though, you are right about that.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Sigh.

You have combined two points. One very reasonable and one ridiculous, and by doing so you've made them both seem equally absurd.

There is no need for conspiracy theories for the first part of your point. Every group in society generally tries to increase their income / status / share of the pie when they can. So workers trade unions will try and get more pay, advocacy groups might want more money for welfare, pensioners want more pensioners, etc. The wealthy in a place like the United States are no different but because they wield disproportionate influence (through campaign contributions as an example) their efforts are often more successful.

And due to the disproportionate amount of power the wealthy have they have ultimate control over the government there. The bit about tax payers money going to the pockets of the wealthy was not a conspiracy. Quite the contrary - it's a consequence of a corrupt system rather than a few corrupt individuals and is no secret. It isn't a conspiracy theory, merely an observation. The intent of military spending can been seen quite easily by simply reading declassified pentagon records. I believe there WAS a conspiracy with the 9/11 incident, if you disagree could you support this with some sort of factual evidence?

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Nadval

Actualy both wars were because Iraq wasn't submissive to American needs. Also the methods of getting citizens to support the war were the same in both cases, the only things that were different were the reasons given to the public.

The small matter of the invasion of Kuwait made a significant difference. Along with the UN backing and International acceptance.

EDIT anyway, this is off-topic.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Ste

The small matter of the invasion of Kuwait made a significant difference. Along with the UN backing and International acceptance.

but dont forget that saddam works for the cia. bush I set up the whole thing, because war is cool !!!

[Nadval]

Another example is the British empire. A study was done at the beginning of the 20th century showing that the cost to maintain the empire was equal to the benefits received from having one. So what was the point in the empire? Large amounts of military spending, which came from tax payer's pockets and straight into the pockets of the wealthy who benefitted from the empire.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nadval

And due to the disproportionate amount of power the wealthy have they have ultimate control over the government there. The bit about tax payers money going to the pockets of the wealthy was not a conspiracy.

I know, that's why I agreed.

I believe there WAS a conspiracy with the 9/11 incident, if you disagree could you support this with some sort of factual evidence?

I don't see how I can disprove a conspiracy per se. As Zar is fond of saying "because it is conpsiracy, there is no evidence" (or words to that effect). Perhaps you can put forward a specific claim (rather than just 'wow, that seemed a bit dodgy').

If you're talking about things like "taking out insurance on the WTC" then (if this is true, I don't care enough to check) it's easily explained by increased evidence of terrorist activity. A wide-scale conspiracy at the heighest levels that the United States would be attacked is very unlikely (and ultimately unnecessary).

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Ste

The small matter of the invasion of Kuwait made a significant difference. Along with the UN backing and International acceptance.

EDIT anyway, this is off-topic.

If international backing made a difference then America had plenty of chances to intervene in Iraq with previous breaches of human rights/the geneve convention, but supported him. What was the difference between the invasion of Kuwait and previous actions by Iraq? The difference is when Iraq invaded Kuwait they weren't supporting America.

[Ste]

It is a fact that terrorist attack was only added to the insurance a couple of months before 9/11.
They also managed to get something in about both towers collapsing at the same time.
A massive profit was made off the insurance companies.

There are quite a lot of unanswered questions... I could go on, but it's not going to get anyone anywhere.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Ste

The small matter of the invasion of Kuwait made a significant difference. Along with the UN backing and International acceptance.

EDIT anyway, this is off-topic.

That was because the US however encouraged and supported Kuwait massively undercutting the price of oil and massively harming the Iraq economy in doing so.

As Saddam was quoted saying, Kuwait was turning our woman into 10 dinar whores with their oil prices.

Saddam acted out of the fact that no-one was interested in his economies long term health, like America have constantly acted out in their economies interest.

It should of went to the negotiating tables the first gulf war, a lot of oil would of been saved, a lot of lives would of been saved and probably all for the cost of an extra cent per gallon on your gas.

[wu_trax]

and next comes the support for the taliban against the SU

THATS ALL OLD NEWS and doesnt support any conspiracy theory. or is your point now that the foreign affairs policy of the us is pretty much stupid? thats also old news.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

.

Hey, I'm not defending any US actions.

Just saying that the reasons behind the second war were different to the first and quite a lot less legitimate.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't see how I can disprove a conspiracy per se. As Zar is fond of saying "because it is conpsiracy, there is no evidence" (or words to that effect). Perhaps you can put forward a specific claim (rather than just 'wow, that seemed a bit dodgy').

If you're talking about things like "taking out insurance on the WTC" then (if this is true, I don't care enough to check) it's easily explained by increased evidence of terrorist activity. A wide-scale conspiracy at the heighest levels that the United States would be attacked is very unlikely (and ultimately unnecessary).

Yer ok you have a point there, just the level of 'dodgyness' and the history of America seems to point to this. I may, of course, be wrong - but I don't think we should ignore the American government's tactics in the past, as they quite often repeat themselves.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by Ste

Hey, I'm not defending any US actions.

Just saying that the reasons behind the second war were different to the first and quite a lot less legitimate.

You're talking about reasons given, I'm talking about the actual reasons.

[Nadval]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

and next comes the support for the taliban against the SU

THATS ALL OLD NEWS and doesnt support any conspiracy theory. or is your point now that the foreign affairs policy of the us is pretty much stupid? thats also old news.

If it's old news then why do people still argue for Bush? And why is he about to win the next election? Or do people simply not care about justice anymore?

Edit - I said anymore... how silly of me.

[Sunday8pm]

Originally Posted by Ste

Hey, I'm not defending any US actions.

Just saying that the reasons behind the second war were different to the first and quite a lot less legitimate.

I'm inferring the first wasn't legitimate, if every country that got invaded was going to get their ass whooped back by the US then africa would be a helluva different place. For some reason they made an exception with Kuwait which I think was ridiculous and a case of the UN at the time being blinkered. Had this happened now I do think other action would of been taken first.